They asked her why she didn't leave the infant at home with her husband and their other two children. She answered that she was breast feeding and obviously he couldn't do that. Well, just as obviously, she could have stayed with the infant and other children and sent her husband to the trade show. There are consequences for all decisions, including the decision to breast feed. The trade show excluded children for safety reasons, and that included an infant in arms.

yes, the time hollowed fark thread where one self entitled b*tch is outraged because she can't whip her t*t out and start lactating wherever she wants. oh god. other people have sensibilities too. maybe you could respect those.

I really don't see why this is a story. There were rules that applied to an event, she did not follow the rules so she was not allowed at the event. This is exactly the same as if some guy showed up without a shirt and got sent home. This lady sounds like the same kind of person who would take three crying kids to an R movie because she is special and can opt out of societal rules that everyone else follows out of common courtesy.

DO NOT fark with the bosses and unions at McCormick place. One time at a show I unplugged one of our monitors which was broken from our power strip and our computer and reconnected a working monitor to said equipment. I/we pissed off like 3 unions in the process and I got my show badge pulled.

Exactly! I mean, what if that baby had jumped out of her arms and started running around?

""There are knives. There are ovens. There are cooking demonstrations with open flames," Hinsley said. "There's all sorts of equipment that could be very dangerous to a child to have any interaction with...""

Yup, that baby could have crawled onto an oven (after turning it on), and burned itself! Or picked up a knife and cut itself!!

mjohnson71:ko_kyi: mjohnson71: /Didn't know any better//Was young and stupid

Your company should have told you those limitations at a Union show.

Some of those limits are reasonable, some are clearly designed to force the organizers to pay someone $265/hour to plug in the replacement monitor.

The way I was told the "big" stuff was union and we could do "small" things. I didn't see switching out a faulty monitor as "big".

Trust me: I learned my lesson.

I was at Raytheon years ago bringing a replacement part. When I met my contact in the lobby I offered him the part and he declined. Said if any of the union people saw him carrying it he'd get in trouble. Me carrying it was probably okay.

fredklein:Mirandized: The trade show excluded children for safety reasons

Exactly! I mean, what if that baby had jumped out of her arms and started running around?

""There are knives. There are ovens. There are cooking demonstrations with open flames," Hinsley said. "There's all sorts of equipment that could be very dangerous to a child to have any interaction with...""

Yup, that baby could have crawled onto an oven (after turning it on), and burned itself! Or picked up a knife and cut itself!!

What about a two-year-old? Or a five-year-old loaded up on sugar? Would your version of these rules say "No body between the ages 16 and n (where n is the age at which a child first becomes difficult to manage) admitted"?

fredklein:Mirandized: The trade show excluded children for safety reasons

Exactly! I mean, what if that baby had jumped out of her arms and started running around?

""There are knives. There are ovens. There are cooking demonstrations with open flames," Hinsley said. "There's all sorts of equipment that could be very dangerous to a child to have any interaction with...""

Yup, that baby could have crawled onto an oven (after turning it on), and burned itself! Or picked up a knife and cut itself!!

Air traffic controllers are allowed to ride in the cockpit on familiarization trips. A female air traffic controller brought her baby with and told the flight attendants to watch it while she sat in the jump seat. Did not work out as planned.

what_now:fredklein: ThatGuyFromTheInternet: What about a two-year-old? Or a five-year-old loaded up on sugar?

They should be banned.

Would your version of these rules say "No body between the ages 16 and n (where n is the age at which a child first becomes difficult to manage) admitted"?

No. But there would be an exception for babies.

You see, if you're concerned about kids 'running around' and getting into trouble, then that, by definition, doesn't apply to a baby, who cannot run (or even crawl).

Sure. But as soon as you say "oh, well that's a baby, he can come in" the next Super Special Mommy brings her two year old because he's in a stroller and can't get out and run around.

Until he gets whiny and she lets him out, and he starts running around.

Just make a rule that strollers aren't allowed. I'm on the fence about this. It isn't even an issue of breast feeding so much as it is making barriers to mothers from participating in business - and this is a long standing issue with women who may or may not want to become mothers. Sure, she could have pumped perhaps, but it sounded like this was a longish trip for her (Minnesota to Chicago). How much would she have had to save up to make that feasible for her infant, especially at 10 days old? On the other hand, I can see the policy makers not wanting to have to be the arbiters of which kids are ok and which are not. If she'd been smarter, she would have called them ahead of time to negotiate some sort of possibility of her attendance particularly since she was invited.

fredklein:ThatGuyFromTheInternet: What about a two-year-old? Or a five-year-old loaded up on sugar?

They should be banned.

Would your version of these rules say "No body between the ages 16 and n (where n is the age at which a child first becomes difficult to manage) admitted"?

No. But there would be an exception for babies.

You see, if you're concerned about kids 'running around' and getting into trouble, then that, by definition, doesn't apply to a baby, who cannot run (or even crawl).

I'm of the opposite mind. No kids applies ESPECIALLY to babies. Babies basically cry, excrete, and get sick and that's it. There's nothing a baby's presence contributes that's in any way productive to any kind of environment where older children would be banned. They are no infant environments.

Would you take your baby on a roller coaster if it was under that line? Hell no. Would you take your baby to a strip club on the grounds it won't remember anything anyway? Hell no. Let's not bring the baby to the trade shows then, either.

fredklein:what_now: Sure. But as soon as you say "oh, well that's a baby, he can come in" the next Super Special Mommy brings her two year old because he's in a stroller and can't get out and run around.

Strollers are banned:

"Osborne said. "I understand not having kids run around or not having strollers - that I understand.""

Until he gets whiny and she lets him out, and he starts running around.

Then ban them.

But a baby, sans stroller, and sans the ability to run around? Let him stay.

What about a paralyzed kid floating on a balloon? Let's cover all exceptions to kid being a liabilty in the parents' eyes.

Mirandized:They asked her why she didn't leave the infant at home with her husband and their other two children. She answered that she was breast feeding and obviously he couldn't do that. Well, just as obviously, she could have stayed with the infant and other children and sent her husband to the trade show. There are consequences for all decisions, including the decision to breast feed. The trade show excluded children for safety reasons, and that included an infant in arms.

Or it's not like they haven't invented these fancy things called breast pumps that women can use to have breast milk available for when you cannot be there for or with the infant.